Mercedes W13

[vorticism]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FNfm4mZXwAM ... name=large

By perfecting the tight internal packaging concept merc is free to use whatever side pod shape size that falls in between these 2 extremes and beyond. Should their nosidepod side pods fail to deliver they have the flexibility to go wide undercut physically rather easily. On the other hand, if the former prove to work well, no other non merc team have easy means to copy

This.

Doing what they did gives them a lot of options when the sidepods are essentially just body work.

Maybe. Different engine cover shapes will be available to any team. They could build them straight down to the floor like this W13, it just requires lots of new panels. If Merc can swap between sidepod shapes without needing to drastically alter FW, RW, rear engine cover, and diffuser, then anyone can. Keep in mind the diffuser is practically the same shape for everyone, and even the FW and RW are not drastically different between teams this year, by design. As well the halo, the front and rear brake ducts, and even the nosecones of the cars are practically identical this year.

My point is that the rules are forcing spec geometries all over the place. If you can still copy/paste parts into that formula, anyone should be able to. If the cost of manufacturing extra parts isn't too great.

Only caveat for me, is whether the notch/undercut in the fuel tank is critical. Still, it is no so severe. Maybe 100mm inward across 200mm?

[Marty_Y]

'There is a significant aero purpose in the mirrors'

Andrew Benson

BBC Sport’s chief F1 writer

Red Bull are not the only team with concerns about the Mercedes upgrade and in particular the integration of the side-impact structure and mirror mount.

Ferrari team principal Mattia Binotto said: "Looking at the Mercedes car, no doubt it is a great car. That should not be a surprise to us. The concept is quite different to ours, quite interesting with the cooling layout, and the side-pods look quite interesting.

"On the mirrors, it was surprising. We were not expecting that. We always said the mirror should have no aero purpose and the way they treated their car, there is a significant aero purpose in the mirrors.

"The risk in the future is all teams will start designing mirrors that look like space ships. In the spirit of what we intend to do for the future, it is something we need to discuss.”

[S E C T I O]

Listen Guys. Dont just post Pictures of 30 Year old Cars with ZERO CONTEXT. If you think it has a TECHNICAL RELEVANCY TO THE W13 state it and we can see what comes out of it. But dont just Post a Picture of a Car with small Sidepods.

I thought the 1991 lambo was more relevant than an f-117 and the photos much less invasive.

Without context they're both Off Topic. It's that simple.

simple but 117 is still there.

[Big Tea]

Mattia Binotto said: ..We always said the mirror should have no aero purpose ...

It must be may age. My memory is failing.

[Ferdecarreras]

'There is a significant aero purpose in the mirrors'

Andrew Benson

BBC Sport’s chief F1 writer

Red Bull are not the only team with concerns about the Mercedes upgrade and in particular the integration of the side-impact structure and mirror mount.

Ferrari team principal Mattia Binotto said: "Looking at the Mercedes car, no doubt it is a great car. That should not be a surprise to us. The concept is quite different to ours, quite interesting with the cooling layout, and the side-pods look quite interesting.

"On the mirrors, it was surprising. We were not expecting that. We always said the mirror should have no aero purpose and the way they treated their car, there is a significant aero purpose in the mirrors.

"The risk in the future is all teams will start designing mirrors that look like space ships. In the spirit of what we intend to do for the future, it is something we need to discuss.”

They should have push for spec mirrors then. Better yet, as F1 mirrors are admitedly not very good at letting drivers see behind the car, why are they not changing It for a camera system? That would be awesome for us viewers too if broadcasted

[Marty_Y]

'There is a significant aero purpose in the mirrors'

Andrew Benson

BBC Sport’s chief F1 writer

Red Bull are not the only team with concerns about the Mercedes upgrade and in particular the integration of the side-impact structure and mirror mount.

Ferrari team principal Mattia Binotto said: "Looking at the Mercedes car, no doubt it is a great car. That should not be a surprise to us. The concept is quite different to ours, quite interesting with the cooling layout, and the side-pods look quite interesting.

"On the mirrors, it was surprising. We were not expecting that. We always said the mirror should have no aero purpose and the way they treated their car, there is a significant aero purpose in the mirrors.

"The risk in the future is all teams will start designing mirrors that look like space ships. In the spirit of what we intend to do for the future, it is something we need to discuss.”

They should have push for spec mirrors then. Better yet, as F1 mirrors are admitedly not very good at letting drivers see behind the car, why are they not changing It for a camera system? That would be awesome for us viewers too if broadcasted

They do broadcast a rear facing camera already, if the driver used it as a rear view mirror I guess it would require a screen because the steering wheel display is always taken up with other important information. Probably would add weight unnecessarily as well.

[basti313]

Camera systems showed up to be crap in other series....

So why the completely different design in the last test? Did they just want tot hide what they are doing for some time or is it to have a plan B for legality reasons?
As Binotto said...I fear this is not a design the FIA will like.

[Vanja #66]

They should have push for spec mirrors then. Better yet, as F1 mirrors are admitedly not very good at letting drivers see behind the car, why are they not changing It for a camera system? That would be awesome for us viewers too if broadcasted

It's not about mirrors, it's about mirror struts or in this case a wing "holding" a mirror. The fact that the bodywork/wing is split is working around the rules completely. So it remains to be seen if any team will push for this to be amended or banned completely.

[maxxer]

Floor edges seem pretty basic did they dump the concept of the wavy floor and now will explore other options.

[Hoffman900]

They should have push for spec mirrors then. Better yet, as F1 mirrors are admitedly not very good at letting drivers see behind the car, why are they not changing It for a camera system? That would be awesome for us viewers too if broadcasted

It's not about mirrors, it's about mirror struts or in this case a wing "holding" a mirror. The fact that the bodywork/wing is split is working around the rules completely. So it remains to be seen if any team will push for this to be amended or banned completely.

This and clearly they all push it. If you look at the Ferrari, their’s conditions the air into the side pods. Teams need to be careful asking for a ruling on something that may cause a change that effects them as well.

[JPower]

They should have push for spec mirrors then. Better yet, as F1 mirrors are admitedly not very good at letting drivers see behind the car, why are they not changing It for a camera system? That would be awesome for us viewers too if broadcasted

It's not about mirrors, it's about mirror struts or in this case a wing "holding" a mirror. The fact that the bodywork/wing is split is working around the rules completely. So it remains to be seen if any team will push for this to be amended or banned completely.

This and clearly they all push it. If you look at the Ferrari, their’s conditions the air into the side pods. Teams need to be careful asking for a ruling on something that may cause a change that effects them as well.

I'm sure Binotto wouldn't be saying it if he thought it would change their design. He is saying this because they banned the SF71H mirror design for a similar reason.

[Vanja #66]

This and clearly they all push it. If you look at the Ferrari, their’s conditions the air into the side pods. Teams need to be careful asking for a ruling on something that may cause a change that effects them as well.

What Ferrari and others are doing is completely within regulations. Mirror stay may be 60mm "long" (X-axis) and Mercedes is obviously longer. However, Mercedes have placed the wing lower and within the sidepod regulation box (obviously) and overcame this regulation. Yet they are likely arguing they can have this "mirror stay" separate since it's a "mirror stay".

[Hoffman900]

It's not about mirrors, it's about mirror struts or in this case a wing "holding" a mirror. The fact that the bodywork/wing is split is working around the rules completely. So it remains to be seen if any team will push for this to be amended or banned completely.

This and clearly they all push it. If you look at the Ferrari, their’s conditions the air into the side pods. Teams need to be careful asking for a ruling on something that may cause a change that effects them as well.

I'm sure Binotto wouldn't be saying it if he thought it would change their design. He is saying this because they banned the SF71H mirror design for a similar reason.

Both Adrian Newey and Steve Nichols have joked about Ferrari shooting their own foot before in this regard.

[Hoffman900]

This and clearly they all push it. If you look at the Ferrari, their’s conditions the air into the side pods. Teams need to be careful asking for a ruling on something that may cause a change that effects them as well.

What Ferrari and others are doing is completely within regulations. Mirror stay may be 60mm "long" (X-axis) and Mercedes is obviously longer. However, Mercedes have placed the wing lower and within the sidepod regulation box (obviously) and overcame this regulation. Yet they are likely arguing they can have this "mirror stay" separate since it's a "mirror stay".

So to me it reads like a grey area. If it fits within the box, they can do what they want?

Furthermore, how is encasing the crash side pod and doing some aero encasing (let’s be real, aero inside the side pods matter as well) vs. just exposing it?

[JPower]

This and clearly they all push it. If you look at the Ferrari, their’s conditions the air into the side pods. Teams need to be careful asking for a ruling on something that may cause a change that effects them as well.

I'm sure Binotto wouldn't be saying it if he thought it would change their design. He is saying this because they banned the SF71H mirror design for a similar reason.

Both Adrian Newey and Steve Nichols have joked about Ferrari shooting their own foot before in this regard.

Great. I'm glad they had a joke.